Tuesday, January 14, 2014

LBJ's "War on Poverty" simply dissolved into elitism

First check Robert J. Samuelson’s “How we won – and lost – the War on Poverty” in the Washington Post Monday (p. A17) here.  It’s easier for government to provide a financial safety net – which the GOP is destroying – than change behavior.  The breakdown of the family – the lack of fathers, all that – raises kids who don’t know how to function and compete in an individualistic society – and that seems a bit of a paradox.  That is, they don’t get why there is an economy at all.  No other animal but man has one.  Does the fact that some men who could probably afford to marry and have children don’t somehow undermine the incentives of those who try?  I get that impression from the social conservatives.
Then Alan S. Blinder writes a liberal column in the fiscally conservative Wall Street Journal “How government wages war on the poor”,  into which LBJ’s War on Poverty morphed, here.  He points out that creative destruction eliminated many old school jobs.  So unless you’re a Clark Kent, a Zuckerberg, a Spiegel, a Murphy, a Winklevoss Twin, a Bieber, a Kutcher, or an otherwise appropriate prodigy, you just can’t compete.  Actually, I could add some people I know more personally to this list and, whether following me on social media or not, you all know who you are and what I expect of Thou. 

What, then, about everyone else?   
Pay your bills, after you pay your dues. 

Update: Jan. 15

Look at Kathleen Parker's op-ed in the Washington Post today, "To defeat poverty, look to marriage", link here. She talks about people being born lucky or born unlucky.  What about those who don't have children?  

No comments: